I hadn't thought to look in View NX (because it is not a program that I ever use!) but have just checked for you and the Ospreys and the Spoonbill were all shot with Dynamic 25.
I don't think there is any doubt that the D5/D500 AF is fast, very responsive and are quite possibly the best AF cameras on the market today. And that is in spite of having flawed dynamic af modes.
I also don't think the "new" dynamic af offers any "advantage to more experienced shooters". In the example Steve Perry mentions, I think single point AF and appropriate focus lock on parameters would have been the more appropriate af mode to use. Dynamic Af mode "was" specifically designed for subjects that are difficult to maintain a single sensor point on.
Instead of offering any advantage to experienced shooters, I think they are just better able to overcome the new dynamic af limitations. They are better able to keep their selected af sensor on the subject the majority of the time. But all photographers will eventually meet a subject where it is difficult to keep the sensor on the subject and will wish for a better dynamic AF mode. Less experienced photographers just find that subject sooner. For me , they are wood ducks exploding off a pond. For more experienced photographers it might be barn swallows. I think few, if any, photographers can keep the AF sensor on the head of a flying barn swallow. Me, I'm happy if I can just get them in the frame.
la puffin wrote:
That leads again to what I posted about the D5 being a more sports oriented camera. The release timing and the Olympics, the DR/ISO tradeoff and this AF system. I can't imagine not wanting the camera to use the primary AF point when it can regain focus. Some other point taking over and tracking? That seems more like video. Reading here, the Dynamic behavior is mostly a problem for wildlife photographers. I haven't heard any sports shooter complain about the D5's Dynamic AF on sports specific forums. Viewing Nikon's marketing material on their site, it's clearly leaning towards the sports shooter - view the sample images. On the same token, the D500 has a more wildlife angle - view the materials and the sample images. Plus the bundling of the D500 with the 200-500 is really a shot at wildlife photographers. That's not really a sports lens.
The inclusion of the AF system on the D500 was probably for marketing horsepower, especially because the AF gets complaints on the Canon 7Dnk2. "Bursting with new technology"... are you going to market old technology? Plus it has the AF modes that seem to be working for wildlife.
Interestingly, Nikon Messaging Center is ticker taping as I write this, that there's a new update for ViewNX-i to 1.2.5. No idea what it encompasses, I haven't downloaded it as I never use it. ...Show more →
As it turns out, I think you were more on track at the time than I was It very well could be that Nikon has geared Dynamic for for sports shooters and hence the change. Still, I think Nikon should have done two things:
1. Report what AF point was actually used - this would have saved a LOT of headaches.
2. Retain a legacy option for people who prefer the old system.
Of course, I'm still not 100% convinced this is working as intended - the non-reporting (or misreporting) of the AF point used in View-NX-i or on the back of the camera is slightly suspicious.
la puffin wrote:
I can't imagine not wanting the camera to use the primary AF point when it can regain focus. Some other point taking over and tracking?
.
That's kind of funny, because I can't imagine wanting the camera to switch back to the primary point and focus on something else when my subject is under another AF point. Please enlighten me.
EdErkes wrote:
I don't think there is any doubt that the D5/D500 AF is fast, very responsive and are quite possibly the best AF cameras on the market today. And that is in spite of having flawed dynamic af modes.
I also don't think the "new" dynamic af offers any "advantage to more experienced shooters". In the example Steve Perry mentions, I think single point AF and appropriate focus lock on parameters would have been the more appropriate af mode to use. Dynamic Af mode "was" specifically designed for subjects that are difficult to maintain a single sensor point on.
Instead of offering any advantage to experienced shooters, I think they are just better able to overcome the new dynamic af limitations. They are better able to keep their selected af sensor on the subject the majority of the time. But all photographers will eventually meet a subject where it is difficult to keep the sensor on the subject and will wish for a better dynamic AF mode. Less experienced photographers just find that subject sooner. For me , they are wood ducks exploding off a pond. For more experienced photographers it might be barn swallows. I think few, if any, photographers can keep the AF sensor on the head of a flying barn swallow. Me, I'm happy if I can just get them in the frame....Show more →
Honestly, I think we're starting to get into a question of shooting style here. In the example I cite, you may very well be correct - for that specific instance. However, the reason we use Dynamic is because it often happens that we can't precisely predict what's going to happen - sometimes Single Point would do it, other times we need the safety net. The problem is, we don't always know which is the way to go before the action starts - so, we use something like Dynamic (as in that example).
With the old system, sometimes the safety net would get "tangled" by getting stuck on the wrong place. Since a more experienced shooter would be able to get back on target more frequently, I can see that in some situations the new way can be advantageous - but that doesn't mean I think it's better than the old system either. Understanding what Nikon may have had in mind and where it might be beneficial doesn't equate to an endorsement
kwilliam8 wrote:
... I plan to continue using the D5/D500 Dynamic Area modes for birds in flight. As my BIF tracking improved over the last year (my first year focused on BIF photography), I found the D5/D500 Dynamic Area modes working better and better for me. Now I know why - because I got better at keeping my subject over the initial AF point (not always easy with very long lenses).
Keith Williamson
I primarily photograph a toddler in flight. I experimented with the various AF menu selections but learned that my D750 was only going to give me the eyes if I used back button focus 3D. With that, lock the red square on the eye (or face) and then he can fly anywhere and I got him. I've used that camera this way for two years.
Switching over to the D500, I was initially going to use it the very same way but have been a lot happier to use dynamic when I can. Dynamic has faster initial grab and I don't have to be so precise. For quick action, I can bring the camera up to my eye and know that D25 is going to get the job done. So with the new AF system I'm a lot happier. I have back-button focus on D25 and the half-shutter on 3D; preferring the former whenever possible. It could be, as you mentioned, that with experience a photographer learns to keep his initial AF over the subject, but I'm going to say that for people taking pictures of kinetic children, the new focus system is better.
I appreciate everyone's efforts in exploring this! I don't think I'm an especially technical shooter as I tend to find what works and stick with it, but all this in depth exploration was great to read through and consider. Good points were made and it shines some light onto areas that left me puzzled. Like, what is the point of D153?
In my testing I have found a few other factors that seem to influence how quickly/if the D5 AF will switch back to the initial AF point. This was tested with the delay set to max and subject motion set to erratic.
If there is nothing under the initial AF point (i.e. blue sky) it will not revert to the initial AF point... at least not quickly at all (perhaps at some time longer than I allowed which was around 20 sec).
If what is under the initial AF point is harder to focus on (greater separation/less DOF) it will be slower to revert.
If what is under the initial AF point is held there steadily, it will revert more quickly.
This seems to indicate that the system is a bit smarter than anticipated. It does not appear to be simply "timing out," but rather that it is simultaneously tracking while checking against the initial AF point. If there is something "good" under the initial point, the more consistently it's under the point, and the closer to being in focus it is, the quicker it will revert.
The situations where this behavior would not be largely beneficial are hard to track small subjects with busy/near backgrounds. In all other situations where tracking is easier, or with better tracking technique, this behavior should prove to be beneficial. It also seems to show a benefit to using faster "pro" lenses that have less DOF when focusing... which makes some sense considering the target market for the D5.
I don't really see a benefit to using "group" mode in the types of situations where tracking is beneficial. As I noted previously, all Nikons have the selected AF point functioning in "group mode" when in a dynamic tracking mode. However, w/ the D5/500 the "dynamic group" only seems to include the 8 non-selectable AF points around the selected point and it is smaller than the area used in the dedicated group mode. (This is not the case with other Nikons)
I think the (my) general rule of "use as few focus points as you can reliably keep on subject" still holds true. I also think I had gotten a bit sloppy about observing that rule with previous Nikons because it was not as quick to penalize me.
sk66 wrote:
In my testing I have found a few other factors that seem to influence how quickly/if the D5 AF will switch back to the initial AF point. This was tested with the delay set to max and subject motion set to erratic.
If there is nothing under the initial AF point (i.e. blue sky) it will not revert to the initial AF point... at least not quickly at all (perhaps at some time longer than I allowed which was around 20 sec).
If what is under the initial AF point is harder to focus on (greater separation/less DOF) it will be slower to revert.
If what is under the initial AF point is held there steadily, it will revert more quickly.
This seems to indicate that the system is a bit smarter than anticipated. It does not appear to be simply "timing out," but rather that it is simultaneously tracking while checking against the initial AF point. If there is something "good" under the initial point, the more consistently it's under the point, and the closer to being in focus it is, the quicker it will revert.
The situations where this behavior would not be largely beneficial are hard to track small subjects with busy/near backgrounds. In all other situations where tracking is easier, or with better tracking technique, this behavior should prove to be beneficial. It also seems to show a benefit to using faster "pro" lenses that have less DOF when focusing... which makes some sense considering the target market for the D5.
I don't really see a benefit to using "group" mode in the types of situations where tracking is beneficial. As I noted previously, all Nikons have the selected AF point functioning in "group mode" when in a dynamic tracking mode. However, w/ the D5/500 the "dynamic group" only seems to include the 8 non-selectable AF points around the selected point and it is smaller than the area used in the dedicated group mode. (This is not the case with other Nikons)
I think the (my) general rule of "use as few focus points as you can reliably keep on subject" still holds true. I also think I had gotten a bit sloppy about observing that rule with previous Nikons because it was not as quick to penalize me....Show more →
Yup, pretty much my observations as well.
In respect to the blue sky scenario, it works just like the old Dynamic system in that respect - so at least there's that
I also agree that the quality of the background target makes a difference for whether the system decides to switch - it has to be a good target or it won't go, but but the EXIF info seems to indicate it does check back after the delay has been reached - and then goes back to tracking whatever it had in the first place if it decides the target is not of sufficient quality.
And I also agree 100% about using the smallest area possible, regardless of the system. I've been preachin' that for years
p.11 #10 · UPDATE - Nikon D5/D500 Dynamic AF Issue
Steve Perry wrote:
Yup, pretty much my observations as well.
In respect to the blue sky scenario, it works just like the old Dynamic system in that respect - so at least there's that
I also agree that the quality of the background target makes a difference for whether the system decides to switch - it has to be a good target or it won't go, but but the EXIF info seems to indicate it does check back after the delay has been reached - and then goes back to tracking whatever it had in the first place if it decides the target is not of sufficient quality.
And I also agree 100% about using the smallest area possible, regardless of the system. I've been preachin' that for years ...Show more →
In one test I used a very good BG target (strong contrast vertical lines) and it was still slower to switch because it was so far out of focus. I could still tell what it was, but the contrast through the viewfinder (and therefore at the AF module) was significantly diminished.
The same behavior can be achieved by assigning the AF-on button to something other than an AF activation function.
Also interestingly enough, that disable setting carries over if you switch to shutter/af-on (for instance, so a remote release will work).
But no, it doesn't change the AF systems overall behaviors.
p.11 #13 · UPDATE - Nikon D5/D500 Dynamic AF Issue
sk66 wrote:
In my testing I have found a few other factors that seem to influence how quickly/if the D5 AF will switch back to the initial AF point. This was tested with the delay set to max and subject motion set to erratic.
If there is nothing under the initial AF point (i.e. blue sky) it will not revert to the initial AF point... at least not quickly at all (perhaps at some time longer than I allowed which was around 20 sec).
If what is under the initial AF point is harder to focus on (greater separation/less DOF) it will be slower to revert.
If what is under the initial AF point is held there steadily, it will revert more quickly.
This seems to indicate that the system is a bit smarter than anticipated. It does not appear to be simply "timing out," but rather that it is simultaneously tracking while checking against the initial AF point. If there is something "good" under the initial point, the more consistently it's under the point, and the closer to being in focus it is, the quicker it will revert.
The situations where this behavior would not be largely beneficial are hard to track small subjects with busy/near backgrounds. In all other situations where tracking is easier, or with better tracking technique, this behavior should prove to be beneficial. It also seems to show a benefit to using faster "pro" lenses that have less DOF when focusing... which makes some sense considering the target market for the D5.
I don't really see a benefit to using "group" mode in the types of situations where tracking is beneficial. As I noted previously, all Nikons have the selected AF point functioning in "group mode" when in a dynamic tracking mode. However, w/ the D5/500 the "dynamic group" only seems to include the 8 non-selectable AF points around the selected point and it is smaller than the area used in the dedicated group mode. (This is not the case with other Nikons)
I think the (my) general rule of "use as few focus points as you can reliably keep on subject" still holds true. I also think I had gotten a bit sloppy about observing that rule with previous Nikons because it was not as quick to penalize me....Show more →
I think this is an excellent description of how dynamic af modes seem to be working with the D500. What I still seem to be missing is how some people see this method as advantageous in some situations. To me, it seems logical that you would want the system to focus just as accurately and remain on the intended subject just as long when there is a busy background as when there is a clean blue sky background. The fact that it doesn't seem to do it as well seems a total disadvantage in all situations. If you are able to keep your selected sensor on your subject(say the head of an egret) then use single point. If you have a little more of a problem maintaining the sensor on the subject, use group or d25. If you have even more issues with maintaining focus, use d72 or d153. That's how I interpret the D500 manual's description on using the AF modes. With the system as it works now, the more peripheral af points of d72 and d153 seem to have little practical use. If the head of the egret gets to one of the outer sensors in d153 mode, the photographer is probably not going to get the primary af point back on the egret's head before the camera reverts to the primary af point and focuses on the background or another part of the bird. Yet it is precisely those situations-- when the subject may stray to the outer sensors-- that you want to use d153 and you want the focus to stay there with the subject. And you want it to stay there whether the background is clean or busy.
p.11 #14 · UPDATE - Nikon D5/D500 Dynamic AF Issue
EdErkes wrote:
I think this is an excellent description of how dynamic af modes seem to be working with the D500. What I still seem to be missing is how some people see this method as advantageous in some situations.
There are times where AF lock/tracking are disadvantageous.
One is when the initial lock is on the wrong point... this actually happens more frequently than you might think with demanding subjects. It's particularly problematic when focus is initiated early before tracking/panning is well established. With the older system you have to "bump" the AF in order to stop/re-start, hopefully on the right point. With the new system as panning/tracking is established and stabilizes it will shift on it's own.
Another scenario is when what you are tracking is closing in... initially the AF lock might be "on the head," or even just "on the subject." But as it gets closer you would prefer it shift to something more specific like the eye. Again, with the old system you might have to bump the AF.
Unless you have looked at a lot of photos closely, along with verifying AF point reported, you might be surprised how many times the old system is "wrong" with demanding subjects like BIF. It quite frequently reports the active in focus point as being somewhere other than where the actual point of focus is.
p.11 #15 · UPDATE - Nikon D5/D500 Dynamic AF Issue
Just an update to my earlier remarks concerning 3D AF in conjunction with a TC:
A colleague tested this and my comments should now be changed to read:
---------
Unfortunately both 3D Tracking and Auto-area AF are disabled when you have a TeleConverter mounted on the camera which reduces the effective aperture to smaller than f/5.6.
A TC-20 used on an f/4 lens reduces the working aperture to f/8 with the result that there are then insufficient focusable points for 3D AF to work.
So, with that particular combination, I am no longer offered the choice of 3D AF and have to choose another AF mode.
A TC-14 on a faster f/2.8 lens does make 3D AF available.
p.11 #16 · UPDATE - Nikon D5/D500 Dynamic AF Issue
AnnJS wrote:
Just an update to my earlier remarks concerning 3D AF in conjunction with a TC:
A colleague tested this and my comments should now be changed to read:
---------
Unfortunately both 3D Tracking and Auto-area AF are disabled when you have a TeleConverter mounted on the camera which reduces the effective aperture to smaller than f/5.6.
A TC-20 used on an f/4 lens reduces the working aperture to f/8 with the result that there are then insufficient focusable points for 3D AF to work.
So, with that particular combination, I am no longer offered the choice of 3D AF and have to choose another AF mode.
A TC-14 on a faster f/2.8 lens does make 3D AF available.
p.11 #17 · UPDATE - Nikon D5/D500 Dynamic AF Issue
Steve Perry wrote:
Yup, pretty much my observations as well.
In respect to the blue sky scenario, it works just like the old Dynamic system in that respect - so at least there's that
I also agree that the quality of the background target makes a difference for whether the system decides to switch - it has to be a good target or it won't go, but but the EXIF info seems to indicate it does check back after the delay has been reached - and then goes back to tracking whatever it had in the first place if it decides the target is not of sufficient quality.
And I also agree 100% about using the smallest area possible, regardless of the system. I've been preachin' that for years ...Show more →
Very appreciative of your efforts Steve.
But I'm still trying to figure out what all this means in practice. What's the consensus now on how best to track a moving target such as a bird against a busy background? Single point would work best if you could keep on target, but not many of us could do that with a small or even mid-sized bird.
p.11 #18 · UPDATE - Nikon D5/D500 Dynamic AF Issue
Keiththom wrote:
Very appreciative of your efforts Steve.
But I'm still trying to figure out what all this means in practice. What's the consensus now on how best to track a moving target such as a bird against a busy background? Single point would work best if you could keep on target, but not many of us could do that with a small or even mid-sized bird.
I don't know that there's been a consensus, and I don't think there is any single answer.
My recommendation, and what I am currently doing is:
1. Use as few points as you can reliably keep on subject.
2. The more difficult the subject is to track, set the delay higher and subject motion more towards erratic.
Another thing that often helps is to start the AF from a shorter distance. I.e. between shots set it to/towards MFD. This tells the lens that there is only one direction to go to obtain focus and it will (hopefully) encounter the subject before the BG. But you don't want to start it so OOF that you can't even find/see the subject.
It very well could be that Nikon has geared Dynamic for for sports shooters and hence the change. Still, I think Nikon should have done two things: